Linux-Advocacy Digest #54, Volume #35 Fri, 8 Jun 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (.)
Re: IBM Goes Gay (.)
Re: Laugh, it's hilarious. (Michael Vester)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (.)
Re: IBM Goes Gay (pip)
Re: MS patches Exchange 2000 email spy bug (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: IBM Goes Gay (.)
Re: IBM Goes Gay (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: UI Importance (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why homosexuals are a threat to heterosexuals (Ulysses)
Re: UI Importance (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: UI Importance (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 8 Jun 2001 16:40:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > drsquare wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 14:29:33 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> >> >> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Will I? How am I going to find this?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >US Centers for Disease Control has the epidemiology of Hepatits
>> >> >> >> >very well documented.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But we apparently can't trust this government agency to report
>> >> >> >> transmission methods of AIDS properly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And the basis for your claim is.....what, exactly
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This agency is probably full of conservative rightwing bigots. Like
>> >> >> you.
>> >>
>> >> > Translation: I, dr.square, have been reduced to ad hominem attacks.
>> >>
>> >> Do you claim to *not* be a conservative right wing bigot?
>>
>> > Simple, I'm a libertarian.
>>
>> Ah, so am I. I have a feeling, however, that I am a libertarian in the
>> truest sense of the word; id almost call myself a jeffersonian democrat.
>>
>> > Right wingers, just like left-wingers, are socialists.
>>
>> > Since libertarianism is fundamentally opposed to ALL forms of socialism,
>> > then, for as long as I am a libertarian, I can NOT be a right winger.
>>
>> Ah, you are a MICHIGAN libertarian. Thats entirely different. Michigan
>> libertarians actually are right wing, conservative bigots.
> Please document one socialist policy which I support.
You are asking me to document your twisted, entirely incorrect definition of
right wing, conservative bigot.
>>
>> I know. I know at least a dozen of them.
>>
>> If you were an actual libertarian, you would be concerned with the right
>> and the work of keeping your own back yard clean to your discression, and
>> you wouldnt give a shit about *anyone* elses.
> The right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.
NO IT DOES NOT. You live in a consequenceless dreamworld, you closetted
faggot.
I am perfectly free to break your face with my fist if I want to, however,
there may be consequences resulting that it would therefore by my responsibility
to handle.
Though in this specific case, I find it doubtful.
> The right to collect and trade deadly, communicable diseases ends
> where MY health begins.
It would help if you actually knew anything at all about droplet infections
and blood borne pathogens.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: 8 Jun 2001 16:43:27 GMT
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Didn't you call someone a limey in a recent post? I suppose that's not
>> >>> as bad as being a homophobe, although I'm not sure why.
>> >>
>> >> I might have. I hate the english.
>> >>
>> >> -----.
>>
>> > Racism is comtemptible.
>>
>> Hating the english isnt racism, its nationalism.
> Come over here and say that and I will show you what I do to
> "nationalists" (hint: I am a big bloke).
You dont grow em bigger there than we grow em HERE.
I'm big too. And I dont mind dusting a limey by giving
him a big kiss on the lips right before I kick him in
the nutsack. That always works by the way, no matter how
ready you are for a big kiss, you arent EVER read for one
from ME.
:)
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Laugh, it's hilarious.
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 03:14:47 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> JS \\ PL wrote:
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fmabf$cmj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > http://www.jokeaday.com/7letters.shtml
> > >
> > > It's on a mailing list I'm subscribe to.
> > > The post-master sent an email about AOL.EXE being a virus, and urge people
> > > to delete it, and post some of the replies in the above URL.
> > >
> > > Here are a couple of the most amusing replies:
> > >
> > > "I beleive that this is a hoax. Isn't AOL.exe a vital component to the
> > > window's operating system? "
> > >
> > > "No!! Any file ending in .EXE is a necessary file to your computer.
> > Wherever
> > > you got that information they're wrong. You need that file. I have learned
> > > this the wrong way. Don't delete any file ending in .EXE Please pass this
> > on
> > > to everybody."
> >
> > That's just one more reason why slapping should be legalized!
> >
> > Had a guy tell me just the other day that his "internet" kept disconnecting
> > so he went in and started deleting a bunch of stuff from his hard drive and
> > it's alot better now! I just responded with my usual smiling "yea, sounds
> > like you fixed it pretty good".
> >
> > Today I was called to a friends office. They couldn't connect to the
> > internet. And I quote "Last night at 5:30PM everything was fine! Now today
> > it won't connect! So I get all fixed up from my slob state, drive down there
> > to see that the computer IS connected. They explain to me that it cant be
> > connected because nothing they type goes to the web site's username /
> > password input box.
> >
> > Hmm... nothing they type shows up....oh look here........another clue....
> > the number lock won't light up....hey I wonder if ANY keys work....were the
> > cleaning people here last night?
>
> Typical LoseDOS lusers.
>
During my past life as tech support, I responded to calls like "My
computer won't work!!!" Upon arrival, I turn on the monitor. Or sometimes
the box itself needs to be turned on. The "typical" user appears unable
to learn anything. I have discovered a pretty good test for the "special
needs" user.
Many years ago, I taught computer classes all about dos. Windows was not
on the horizon then. The biggest hurdle hurdle was the directories. Md,
cd and rd were the hardest concepts. I tried analogies like file folders
in a filing cabinet. I even brought paper files, file folders and a
cabinet to demonstrate what the computer was doing. Still, despite my
most valiant attempts, half the class could not understand. The other
half were angry because the class was being held up.
Even in a GUI environment, understanding the concept of directories is
still baffling for many users. I can quickly judge a user's technical
competence just by looking at the way they store their data files. When I
see 500 data files in the root, I know that I am dealing with a "special
needs" user. If I see data files neatly organized in a well thought out
hierarchy, I know this user is comfortable with the technology and when
they request tech support, it will be a real problem. They won't call tech
support to turn on their computer.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
<snip>
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:46:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:44:40 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Stephen Howe wrote:
>>
>> Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9fk5j4$7ae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > difference is, when I kill -9 something, the SOB dies, when you
>> > ctrl-alt-del and "kill" a task in Windows, you have no idea if it is
>> > actually going to die or not. It's been my experience with W9X, that about
>> > 50% of the time, the process will not die, and will hose the system,
>> > forcing a reboot. With linux, the worst case scenario, is that the process
>> > is a zombie, in which case, doing kill -HUP on it's owning process will
>> > take care of it.
>>
>> I have never used Linux before but I can testify the truth of what you are
>> saying with Windows 9x.
>> Killing processes under Windows 9x is fraught with danger as you do not know
>> if it will kill the OS as well.
>> Generally I have found that NT 4.0 is more crashproof and 2000 better still
>> but still not foolproof.
>>
>> I am looking forward to setting up Linux.
>> I take it for granted that it is 100% crashproof, right?
>> No bugs, at all, right? <drooling at the thought>
>
>
>Lets just say, that if, on a scale of 0-100, Windows has a crash occurance
>rating of 50, then Linux has a crash-occurance rating on the order of
>10^(-n), where n is some positive number.
In the following, I'll assume that the measurement of most interest
is the "probability of server down", not "crash-occurance". (A
crash will always occur if one waits long enough; nothing's perfect.)
Other metrics might include "probability of a crash approaching 63%"
(some sort of Bell curve approximation), or mean time between failures
(which would be average reboot time / probability of server down).
N could get arbitrarily small in the above. At most, N could be 6
with modern equipment (assuming 2 years age, 1 minute reboot time),
and as high as 8 with older equipment, although considering the oldest
equipment is 40 years, that might be pushing it.
T2 = 365 * 2 * 24 * 60 = 1,051,200
N2 = log10(T2) = 6.0 or so.
T40 = 365 * 40 * 24 * 60 = 21,024,000 minutes.
N40 = log10(T40) = 7.3 or so.
It's also not clear that Windows has a down probability of 50%
(i.e., if one passes by a node running Windows, the probability that
it is showing a Blue Screen Of Death or is otherwise unavailable
is 1 of 2). I've been given to understand that NT had an average up
time of about 6 weeks in one installation = a downtime probability
of 1.7e-5 (or 0.0017%), again assuming a 1 minute reboot time.
This means NT was almost at the much-touted "5 9's" reliability level;
it just needs to double its MTBF.
(We should be impressed? I routinely get uptimes of over 100 days;
uptimes of several years are not unheard of. My system only
goes down when I want it to go down, or when there's a power problem.)
If a Win95 system were to crash three times a day, that would
translate to a downtime probability of as high as 0.2%, or even 0.6%
(if one assumes a day is 8 hours and the computer sits unused the
rest of the time). The computer system of a friend of mine crashes
after a few *minutes*, but I suspect that's a power or hardware problem.
(The fact that her house doesn't have grounded plugs -- it was built
before they were required by Code -- may be a part of the problem.)
This also assumes that someone wanders by and reboots it immediately,
as necessary. If not, the downtime probabilities could be much higher.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 39d:12h:47m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 08 Jun 2001 17:48:24 +0100
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are three types of homosexuals:
>
> > a) those who have AIDS
> > b) those who will get AIDS
> > c) those who will get die before they get a chance to get AIDS.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> Yet something else aaron knows absolutely nothing about.
>
> Tell the class aaron, do you have any actual evidence to back up these
> psychotic claims of yours?
No, be fair and give him credit where credit is due - Kulkis's
statement is almost logically true.
Think about it: given a member of any group (homosexuals, republicans,
englishmen, whatever) and any property P (contracting AIDS, not having a
brain, being useless tossers) it is a logical trueism that they will
fall into one of the following three categories:
a) they have in the past had P
b) they will at some point in the future have P
c) They will never have P
Of course, Kulkis got this structure a bit wrong, because there is a
possibility that someone gets a _chance_ to catch AIDS, but not
actually _catch_ it. Still, this is the closest thing to a factually
correct posting I've seen from this source.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 8 Jun 2001 16:50:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > There are three types of homosexuals:
>>
>> > a) those who have AIDS
>> > b) those who will get AIDS
>> > c) those who will get die before they get a chance to get AIDS.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>> Yet something else aaron knows absolutely nothing about.
>>
>> Tell the class aaron, do you have any actual evidence to back up these
>> psychotic claims of yours?
> No, be fair and give him credit where credit is due - Kulkis's
> statement is almost logically true.
> Think about it: given a member of any group (homosexuals, republicans,
> englishmen, whatever) and any property P (contracting AIDS, not having a
> brain, being useless tossers) it is a logical trueism that they will
> fall into one of the following three categories:
> a) they have in the past had P
> b) they will at some point in the future have P
> c) They will never have P
Hah. Alright, true enough. I didnt see this bent syllogism inside
aaron's argument because of my raging desposition. Lesson learned. :)
> Of course, Kulkis got this structure a bit wrong, because there is a
> possibility that someone gets a _chance_ to catch AIDS, but not
> actually _catch_ it. Still, this is the closest thing to a factually
> correct posting I've seen from this source.
Agreed. Thankfully, his argument also applies to himself.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:01:01 +0100
"." wrote:
>
> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." wrote:
> >>
> >> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>> Didn't you call someone a limey in a recent post? I suppose that's not
> >> >>> as bad as being a homophobe, although I'm not sure why.
> >> >>
> >> >> I might have. I hate the english.
> >> >>
> >> >> -----.
> >>
> >> > Racism is comtemptible.
> >>
> >> Hating the english isnt racism, its nationalism.
>
> > Come over here and say that and I will show you what I do to
> > "nationalists" (hint: I am a big bloke).
>
> You dont grow em bigger there than we grow em HERE.
>
> I'm big too. And I dont mind dusting a limey by giving
> him a big kiss on the lips right before I kick him in
> the nutsack. That always works by the way, no matter how
> ready you are for a big kiss, you arent EVER read for one
> from ME.
LOL - Bah humbug! I'll just blow some air up your kilt to distract you
(or nick your tinny).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: MS patches Exchange 2000 email spy bug
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:14:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Sean
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:42 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>...but Microsoft is a **marketing** company....they know
>nothing about software.
I'd quibble about that; it's clear that Microsoft knows quite
a bit about software; one doesn't maintain NT without at least
a working knowledge of how to code in C, C++, Visual Basic,
or what not.
Of course, it's not all that *good*, and Microsoft may have
been trapped by their own success. One issue is that they
have to make sure that their next release of Windows Whatever
supports their applications, developed on the previous
release of Windows Whatever, and DOS.
This is a thankless task, made worse by their dependence on the
286 at the time (there was no elegant method by which to go from
protected back to real mode on that chip; Windows selected an ugly
hack but may have had no choice in the matter), and it was only
when the 386 came out that a relatively flat address space
became available -- and Linus created Linux on that chip.
(Xenix ran on the 286, and ran reasonably well, athough I'm
not sure if it could allocate more than 64k in a contiguous block.)
I forget whether the 386 or 486 introduces the V86 concept --
I suspect the 386 did.
In short, Windows required binary-code upward-compatibility.
Linux isn't quite that restrictive, although ideally it
would have upward-compatibility, as well. However, since the
source code is usually available, one can "roll their own",
in many cases. (Of course, this requires a certain mindset;
"./configure && make depend && make" is a little harder --
although not that much harder -- than "double-click on SETUP.EXE".)
Some of the savvier individuals can also make modifications.
There's also the 16-vs-32-vs-64 issue; Microsoft decided to
go with fixed message sizes, for whatever reason -- a bad
decision in retrospect. But it's not clear the other decision --
using "X *" pointers, basically -- might have fared better, or not.
Linux is far cleaner in pointer-handling, internally,
although the kernel might be a smaller space (a similar compilation
space in NT might include most of the GDI). Note also that
the PDP 11/70's pointers could fit in a short.
And then there's the wildcard: Java. Were everyone to immediately
adopt Java, it may no longer matter what's underneath -- this must
scare Microsoft, judging from their response (.NET and C# et al).
>
>Maybe they know a bit about illegal monopolies, but asking
>them to produce high quality, secure, user-friendly software
>simply ignores twenty years of terrific marketing and twenty
>years of lousy software.
Lousy, virus-vulnerable, slow (relative to other solutions),
but convenient to use (if one doesn't stray too far),
pretty (in a rather kitschy sort of way) and profitable.
I'm not sure what that tells us about ourselves.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 39d:12h:53m actually running Linux.
Be paranoid. Everyone else is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: 8 Jun 2001 17:17:05 GMT
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>> Didn't you call someone a limey in a recent post? I suppose that's not
>> >> >>> as bad as being a homophobe, although I'm not sure why.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I might have. I hate the english.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----.
>> >>
>> >> > Racism is comtemptible.
>> >>
>> >> Hating the english isnt racism, its nationalism.
>>
>> > Come over here and say that and I will show you what I do to
>> > "nationalists" (hint: I am a big bloke).
>>
>> You dont grow em bigger there than we grow em HERE.
>>
>> I'm big too. And I dont mind dusting a limey by giving
>> him a big kiss on the lips right before I kick him in
>> the nutsack. That always works by the way, no matter how
>> ready you are for a big kiss, you arent EVER read for one
>> from ME.
> LOL - Bah humbug! I'll just blow some air up your kilt to distract you
> (or nick your tinny).
Hahhahhahaa...you dont have to be a Scot to be a nationalist. :P
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:10:49 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:15:55 -0000, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Folks, it's a sad day for IBM supporters because apparently they have
> >succumbed to the gay pressure and are mobilizing to support this
> >deviant lifestyle.
>
> +------------------------+
> | |
> | PLEASE |
> | |
> | Do not feed the troll. |
> | Thank you. |
> | |
> | The Management |
> | |
> +----------+--+----------+
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> * @ @ ( ) * @ )|@ | / @ \ * * @* * +@
> _)_()_(_(_|(__)_)_(|(_|/__/__)(_(_))_(_/)_
Too late. This thread is going to run and run...
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:09:12 +0200
Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> So where does that leave M$ when it comes to security? At the
>> bottom of the pile.
>
> Do YOU even know what you're talking about? Have you ever
> heard of NT or Windows 2000?
>
Unfortenately, yes. Crap
Peter
--
If Windows is the answer then it probably has been a stupid question
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:14:50 +0200
Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> Since when does it have to be open source?
>
> Because Penguinistas live in a world where everything should be free
> and everyone's happy and roses grow everywhere =)
>
Notice how our local SSH-guru Chad Myers now is also an expert in
open source.
Peter
--
Stop repeating yourself. Try something original - like suicide
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:31:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:58:23 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:11:23 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:10:44 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>
>>>>But someone *still* has to write this documentation, you know.
>>>>And you need to *support* them.
>>>
>>>As far as I'm aware, documentation for said shells has already been
>>>written.
>>
>>But the syntax for these other shells is diferent then the curent
>>Windows shell. If someone calls tech support and is told to type
>>
>>D:
>>cd fubar
>>copy widget.exe c:\fubar\widget.exe
>>
>>and the user is using TCSH, it wont work.
>
>The D: wouldn't work, but that's because of windows' fucked up file
>system, but the "cd" and "copy" commands would still be in the path.
Yes, but one is likely to get a file named
'C:fubarwidget.exe'
as TCSH eats the backslashes. Or, it will simply put
'fubarwidget.exe' somewhere on the C: drive -- I can't say
precisely where as it depends on what directory is current on that
drive (this is interesting behavior, but not all that useful).
This is assuming it finds D:\?\fubar\widget.exe at all.
Either way, the novice user gets confused. Of course, if said user
is knowledgeable enough to be using TCSH, he'll probably know
about this problem anyway, and either use double backslashes,
or forward slashes.
(Pedant point: 'cd' is a shell builtin, for hopefully obvious reasons.
I know of only one system where 'cd' was implemented as an executable
(AmigaOS).)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random hack and slash here
EAC code #191 39d:14h:42m actually running Linux.
The Internet routes around censorship.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ulysses)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are a threat to heterosexuals
Date: 8 Jun 2001 10:32:46 -0700
The header says "Why homosexuals are a threat to heterosexuals" but I
don't see anything in any of the posts which might answer that
question, so I conclude the posters have nothing to back up their
predjudices.
In re: the poster who asks what one might do when "they teach
alternative lifestyles to your kid", I have to say that since we all
live "alternative lifestyles" in one way or another, I welcome the
teaching of toleration and comradly feelings generally.
In fact, the threat seems to be the folks who, for reasons I certainly
don't understand, are terrified by folks with different gender roles
than their own.
> > We have a special word for people who don't recognize danger............
Other than the danger of bigoted, homophobic, religiously
fundimentalist (and a crummy form of the religion in question) nazis
such as post in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, what danger did you have in
mind?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:33:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:07:46 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:07:03 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> >Not for Windows.
>>> >You'll find that the terminology and the language of Windows'
>>documentation
>>> >is different from other OS'.
>>> >Folder vs Directory, frex.
>>> >
>>> >And are they up to the standards of Windows documentation?
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't see the point in porting any shells to windows.
>>> Windows is a GUI orientated OS, and there's not a lot you can do from
>>> the command line apart from launching things and basic file
>>> manipulation.
>>
>>You can do a lot from the CLI.
>>You just nead to delve into it and learn.
>
>Edit the registry? Install/remove windows components? Even some things
>you can do with the CLI you can't do without the GUI loaded as well.
No doubt somebody's written third-party tools to do simple things
to the registry with command-line arguments. Not sure if RegEDT32.EXE
is among them -- REGEDT32 portrays itself in the usual GUI fashion,
but might have command-line options. However, I can't say I know
offhand.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random monolithic registry here
EAC code #191 39d:15h:50m actually running Linux.
I don't hate Microsoft. Just their products.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:34:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Josiah Fizer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:09:53 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:10:39 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:32:18 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:52:04 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>What's the point of man pages?
>>>>
>>>>To find out things about things?
>>>
>>>admin@Trillian ~> man things
>>>No manual entry for things.
>>>
>>>Seems to not work.
>>
>>You must not have things installed then.
>
>I cant find a things.pkg for Soalris 8, and I'm too lazy to recompile
>it. I'll just have to get by using stuff.
Does 'man stuff' work? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random MANPATH here
EAC code #191 39d:15h:59m actually running Linux.
Linux. When Microsoft isn't enough anymore.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
